Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 2:21
And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
The true King of the Jews being born, the singular providence of God so ordered it, that there was no more constituted governors of Judea under the title of kings, though they are said to reign, because the tetrarchs in their provinces exercised a regal power; for though Archelaus was by his fathers will declared his successor in the kingdom, yet the emperor and senate of Rome was to confirm him, who made Archelaus tetrarch of Judea, as appears by this verse; Antipas, another of his sons, called also by his fathers name, tetrarch of Galilee; Philip, another of his sons, tetrarch of Iturea; and Lysanias tetrarch of Abylene; and set a governor over Judea, which was Pontius Pilate; as appeareth by Luk 3:1. Of all the sons of Herod, Archelaus is said to be of the most fierce and bloody disposition, which made Joseph afraid to go thither. His brother Herod Antipas is reported of a much milder disposition, and more inactive temper. So Joseph, not without the direction of God, goeth into his own province, which was Galilee.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
21. And he arose, and took the youngchild and his mother, and came into the land of Israelintending,as is plain from what follows, to return to Bethlehem of Judea,there, no doubt, to rear the Infant King, as at His own royal city,until the time should come when they would expect Him to occupyJerusalem, “the city of the Great King.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he arose and took the young child and his mother,…. He exactly conformed in every circumstance to the orders given him, with respect to the persons he took, the place he went to, and the expeditiousness of doing it; and is an example of ready and cheerful obedience to the commands of God, worthy of imitation. We may learn from hence, as well as from some other instances already met with, a reason among others, why, though Mary was a virgin, and even if she was to continue so, yet she must be espoused to Joseph as her husband; that she might have one to take care of her and her young child, and be a means, under God, of preserving, protecting, and providing for them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And he arose, and took the young child and his mother,” (ho de egertheis parelaben to paidion kai ten metera autou) “Then Joseph arose and took the child Jesus and his mother Mary:” Undelayed obedience to the call and command of the Lord for one’s life is of paramount importance, Jas 1:22; Act 26:19-20.
2) “And came into the land of Israel.” (kai eiselthen eis gen Israel) “And they entered into the land of Israel,” from Egypt, on the continent of Africa, where they had remained for a time, at the direction of the angel of the Lord. As Moses obeyed the call of God to lead Israel out of Egypt, as Jonah (after costly delay) obeyed God in preaching to Ninevah, and as Paul obeyed God in going to the Gentiles, and each was blessed, so do men yet find success and reward in doing what God calls them to do, wherever his providence may lead them to go, Heb 13:5; Psa 1:1-6. Let this be every believer’s resolve:
“Wherever he leads, I’ll go,
Wherever he leads, I’ll go.
Because my Savior loves me so,
Wherever he leads, I’ll go.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
‘And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.’
And Joseph did precisely as God had commanded. Note the repetition of the phraseology in order to bring out the point. They ‘came into the land of Israel’. God’s will and purpose from the beginning was going forward through full obedience in the face of hardship.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joseph lost no time in obeying the command:
v. 21. And he arose, and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he reached Judea, a new danger confronted him, causing his fears to be renewed:
v. 22.. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Herod, indeed, was dead, but Augustus had divided his kingdom among his three sons. Archelaus obtained Judea, Idumea, and Samaria, with the designation of ethnarch; Herod Antipas, Galilee and Perea; and Philip, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Auranitis, the latter two receiving the title tetrarch (ruler over a fourth part). Like his father, Archelaus was a suspicious and cruel tyrant. It is related of him that, at one of the Passovers, he caused three thousand people to be put to death in the Temple and city. No wonder that Joseph was filled with apprehension as to the safety of his charges. To settle in Judea was the most natural course to follow, and he probably had Jerusalem in mind. But once more God Himself, through the agency of an angel, solved the difficulty and indicated to him a place of security. And so he turned aside, made the journey up to Galilee, the northern part of Palestine, formerly divided into Upper and Lower Galilee, the former being Galilee proper. Mat 4:12; Joh 4:43, the latter occupying the ancient territory of Zebulon. It was to Lower Galilee that Joseph journeyed with the Child and His mother:
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
Ver. 21. And he arose, &c., and came into the land of Israel ] Glad they were got out of such a hell as Egypt, Eze 20:7-8 where the Israelites having been for a time, brought back with them a golden calf; Jeroboam brought home two; and these good souls could not but get and gather guilt or grief. Hence David’s moans at Mesech, Psa 120:5 Lot’s vexation at Sodom, Jeremiah’s wish for a cottage in the wilderness, far enough off from those adulterers and assemblies of treacherous men, those sacrificing Sodomites, Jer 9:2 of whom it might be said, as Aaron of the people, that they were wholly set upon sin, Exo 32:22 ; 1Jn 5:19 . But some of the saints forsake all (said Marsh the martyr) and commit themselves to painful exile, that, if it please God, Christ may come again out of Egypt. (Acts and Mon.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 6:22, Heb 11:8
Reciprocal: Mat 2:14 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:21
Verse 21. This verse Is still in the general form and merely states that Joseph brought the childd. and his mother into the land. of Israel and in so doing he carried out the first in structions of the angel delivered to him In the land of Egypt.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 2:21. The land of Israel included Galilee, but Judea would be reached first on the return.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The just fear that Joseph has upon his mind, that Herod’s son would be as bloody a tyrant as his flagitious father. No wonder that the children of cruel persecutors are suspected to tread in their bloody parents’ steps.
Observe, 2. How God’s warrant and direction doth quiet Joseph’s mind, resolve his doubts, and remove his fears, and make him readily comply with the command of God; Being warned of God he removes out of Egypt into Gallilee.
O how safe and satisfactory is it, in all our ways, to follow the call and comand of God! Joseph and Mary durst not move their feet, no not out of Egypt itself, till God gives them a warrant for their departure, and bids them go.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 2:21-22. And he arose Joseph obeyed the angel, and, it appears, would gladly have gone to Judea, probably to Bethlehem, because from his own knowledge of the prophecies, as well as from the decision of the scribes, an account of which he might have received from the magi, he fancied his sons education in Bethlehem was as necessary to his being acknowledged the Messiah, as his birth, which had been so providentially ordered to happen there. Nevertheless, when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judea, he was afraid to go thither, knowing the jealous and cruel disposition of that prince. Archelaus was the sixth son of Herod, and the most cruel of all those that survived him. His father appointed him his successor, with regal authority, but Augustus gave him only the title of ethnarch, or ruler of the nation, annexing to his government Samaria and Iduma. In the very beginning of his reign, he massacred 3,000 Jews at once in the temple, and was afterward, viz., in the tenth year of his government, banished by Augustus to Vienna in Gaul, on a complaint brought against him by the chief of the Jews, for his various cruelties. Joseph, therefore, might well be afraid to settle in a country that was under the government of such a cruel tyrant. Being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee which was under the government of Herod Antipas, (see note on Mat 2:2,) a prince of a milder character than Archelaus, and then on such hostile terms with him, that there was no danger of his giving up Joseph and Mary into his power. Add to this, that, being intent upon building the cities of Julias and Tiberias, he endeavoured, by promises and immunities, as well as by a mild government, to allure strangers to come and settle there. We may observe here, that although Josephs near relation to Jesus exposed him to many difficulties and dangers, such as he had been a stranger to till it commenced, yet it made him ample amends for that inconvenience, by placing him and his under the peculiar care of a watchful Providence, ever attentive to his safety, and that of his little family; and by procuring him the favour of so many extraordinary visitations and supernatural discoveries of the divine will. This is no less than the fourth message sent him from the court of heaven since he became the husband of Mary!
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joseph obediently responded to the Lord’s command. However before he could do so, news reached him that Herod the Great’s son, Archelaus, had begun to rule as ethnarch over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. The rest of Herod the Great’s kingdom went to his sons Antipas, who ruled as tetrarch over Galilee and Perea (4 B.C. – A.D. 39), and Philip. "Tetrarch" means Philip ruled over one-fourth of the kingdom of his father, Herod the Great. Philip became tetrarch of Iturea, Trachonitis, and some other territories (4 B.C. – A.D. 34). The title "ethnarch" was a more honorable title than "tetrarch." It meant ruler over a people. It was also a title inferior to "king," however.
"One of the first acts of Archelaus was to murder some three thousand people in the temple because some of their number had memorialized some martyrs put to death by Herod. Like father, like son." [Note: Walvoord, p. 24. See also Edersheim, 1:220.]
Archelaus proved to be a bad ruler. Caesar Augustus banished him for his poor record in A.D. 6. [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 96.] Philip was the best ruler among Herod the Great’s sons.
Evidently God warned Joseph not to return to Archelaus’ territory. Joseph chose to settle in Nazareth in Galilee instead, on the northern border of Zebulun, undoubtedly guided there by God. This had been his and Mary’s residence before Jesus’ birth (Mat 13:53-58; Luk 1:26-27; Luk 2:39). Matthew noted that this move was another fulfillment of prophecy (Mat 2:23). Nazareth stood 70 miles north of Bethlehem, and archaeological evidence points to a population of about 480 at the beginning of the first century A.D. [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 91.]
". . . the ancient Via Maris [Sea Highway] led through Nazareth, and thence either by Cana, or else along the northern shoulder of Mount Tabor, to the Lake of Gennesaret-each of these roads soon uniting with the Upper Galilean. Hence, although the stream of commerce between Acco and the East was divided into three channels, yet, as one of these passed through Nazareth, the quiet little town was not a stagnant pool of rustic seclusion. . . . But, on the other hand, Nazareth was also one of the great centers of Jewish Temple-life. . . . The Priests of the ’course’ which was to be on duty always gathered in certain towns, whence they went up in company to Jerusalem, while those of their number who were unable to go spent the week in fasting and prayer. . . . Thus, to take a wider view, a double symbolic significance attached to Nazareth, since through it passed alike those who carried on the traffic of the world, and those who ministered in the Temple." [Note: Edersheim, 1:147-48.]
Careful attention to the terms Matthew used to describe this fulfillment helps us understand how Jesus fulfilled Scripture. First, Matthew said the prophecy came through "prophets," not a prophet. This is the only place in the first Gospel that he said this. Second, Matthew did not say that the prophets "said" or "wrote" the prediction. He said "what was said or spoken" through them happened. In other words, Matthew was quoting indirectly, freely. [Note: W. Barnes Tatum Jr., "Mat 2:23," The Bible Translator 27 (1976):135-37.]
There is no Old Testament passage that predicted that the Messiah would come from Nazareth or that people would call Him a Nazarene. How then could Matthew say that Jesus fulfilled Scripture by living there? The most probable explanation seems to be that Nazareth was a specially despised town in the despised region of Galilee in Jesus’ day (Joh 1:46; Joh 7:42; Joh 7:52). Several of the Old Testament prophets predicted that people would despise the Messiah (Psa 22:6-8; Psa 22:13; Psa 69:8; Psa 69:20-21; Isa 11:1; Isa 42:1-4; Isa 49:7; Isa 53:2-3; Isa 53:8; Dan 9:26). Matthew often returned to this theme of Jesus being despised (Mat 8:20; Mat 11:16-19; Mat 15:7-8). The writer appears to be giving the substance of several Old Testament passages here rather than quoting any one of them. There may also be an allusion to the naser ("branch") in Isa 11:1 that the rabbis in Jesus’ day regarded as messianic. [Note: The New Scofield . . ., p. 994; Wiersbe, 1:16.] In that passage David’s heir appears to be emerging from a lowly, obscure place. One writer gave evidence that the Targums, as well as the New Testament writers, exegeted the Old Testament messianically. [Note: See Michael B. Shepherd, "Targums, The New Testament, and Biblical Theology of the Messiah," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:1 (March 2008):45-58.]
"In the first century, Nazarenes were people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame (Joh 1:46). The prophets did teach that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene." [Note: Fruchtenbaum, p. 845.]
Fruchtenbaum called this type of prophetic fulfillment "summation." [Note: Ibid.] Cooper preferred to call it "literal prophecy plus a summation." [Note: Cooper, pp. 177-78.]
"Jesus is King Messiah, Son of God, Son of David; but he was a branch from a royal line hacked down to a stump and reared in surroundings guaranteed to win him scorn. Jesus the Messiah, Matthew is telling us, did not introduce his kingdom with outward show or present himself with the pomp of an earthly monarch. In accord with prophecy he came as the despised Servant of the Lord." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 97.]
Less satisfying explanations of this prophecy and its fulfillment are the following. First, some connect "Nazarene" with "Nazirite" (cf. Jdg 13:5). However, Jesus was never a Nazirite (Mat 11:19). Furthermore the etymologies of these words do not connect. Second, some believe the Hebrew word translated "branch" (naser) in Isa 11:1 sounds enough like Nazareth to justify a connection. The problem with this view is that the Hebrew word and the town of Nazareth have nothing in common except similar sounding names. Also naser occurs in only one passage, but Matthew quoted the "prophets." Third, some writers have posited a pre-Christian sect and suggested that Matthew referred to this. There is no evidence to support this theory. Fourth, some believe Matthew was making a pun by connecting the names Nazareth and Nazarene. If this were true, how could he claim a fulfillment of prophecy? Fifth, some think the writer referred to prophecies not recorded in Scripture but known to and accepted by his original readers. Matthew gave no clue that this unusual meaning is what he intended. Furthermore later readers would not only reject such an authority but would charge Matthew with fabricating such a source to support his argument.
Matthew chapter 2 advances the writer’s argument significantly by making three major points.
"The first relates to the Gentiles. The Magi come from the East and worship the King of the Jews. A glimmering foreview of all the nations of the earth being blessed in Abraham is seen in this act. . . . The second point Matthew makes concerns the Jews. They are shown to be unconcerned and indifferent to any report concerning Him. Finally, Matthew, by his use of the Old Testament, proves that Jesus is the promised Messiah. He is the fulfillment of all that is anticipated in their Scriptures. These three things form the basis of Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus is presented as the Messiah prophesied and promised in the Old Testament. The Jews reject Him. Because of this rejection the King turns to the Gentiles and the kingdom program for the Jews is postponed.
"Chapter one declares the theanthropic character of the person of the Messiah. The reception which is to be given the claims of the Messiah is set forth in chapter two. Matthew three begins the narrative of the historical account of the presentation of Israel’s Messiah to that nation." [Note: Toussaint, pp. 57-58.]
"Matthew 1-2 serves as a finely wrought prologue for every major theme in the Gospel." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 73.]